Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

Unauthorised Use of ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ Marks by Defendants Constitute Infringement and Passing Off, Marks Declared Well-Known” – Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has declared the marks ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ as well-known trademarks, granting significant relief to Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. in their suit against Berachah Sales Corporation & Ors. Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed that the unauthorized use of these marks by the defendants constituted infringement and passing off, thereby granting a permanent injunction against the defendants.

The Court focused on the infringement of trademarks, observing that the unauthorized usage of Haldiram's registered trademarks ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ by the defendants for identical services satisfied the triple identity test, establishing infringement.

Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. alleged that the defendants were infringing upon their registered trademarks and passing off their products as those of Haldiram’s. The issue revolved around the unauthorized use of the ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ marks by the defendants on a variety of food products and related materials.

Infringement Analysis: The Court noted the long usage and recognition of the ‘HALDIRAM’ marks, underscoring that allowing the defendants to use similar marks would severely impinge upon Haldiram's rights.

Well-known Trademark Declaration: The Court declared ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ as well-known trademarks, considering their duration, extent of use, advertising, and substantial recognition.

Damages Assessment: Haldiram was awarded damages of Rs. 50 lakhs for the infringement by the defendants, with an emphasis on compensatory and exemplary damages due to the significant impact on Haldiram’s reputation.

Costs Awarded: The Court also awarded costs of Rs. 2 lakhs to Haldiram, taking into account their legal expenses and efforts in protecting their trademarks.

Decision: Granting a decree of permanent injunction, the Court restrained the defendants from using the ‘HALDIRAM’, ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’, or any deceptively similar marks. The well-known status of the trademarks ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ was affirmed, providing broader protection against misuse.

Date of Decision: April 2, 2024

HALDIRAM INDIA PVT. LTD vs BERACHAH SALES CORPORATION & ORS

Latest Legal News